Wins are just another tool to evaluate pitchers.   I don't think anyone is saying they're the be all to end all.   But a guy with a lot of wins is, in all likelihood, pretty good.   Eric Gagne had a losing record and won a Cy.   Go figure.   Oh, that's right, he was a RP.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Wins are just another tool to evaluate pitchers.   I don't think anyone is saying they're the be all to end all.   But a guy with a lot of wins is, in all likelihood, pretty good.   Eric Gagne had a losing record and won a Cy.   Go figure.   Oh, that's right, he was a RP.

No one is arguing against those points (well, I insist that wins are pointless but anyway). Tec is saying that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina because Glavine has more 20 win seasons, which is ridiculous.

I don't think either of them belong in the HOF using any stat.   IMO, they're the same guy that throws with the other hand.  tec has to make his own arguments.

MikeT23, how many players would be in the MLB HOF if it were up to you?

Don't know.   But, if you start with a standard of Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson, Johnson and Cobb over the first 40+ years of baseball, you don't leave a lot of room for "really good".    IMO, it started with the best of the best not "pretty good players in their time".   

I think a hall of a couple hundred players is reasonable, especially since the level of competition is always going up and the hall of famers from 80 years ago would have a hard time playing today's game.

They were the best athletes of their time.   Hard to believe that a Babe Ruth of today wouldn't be able to utilize the current  training and nutrition advances we have.

I think that it's more than just training and nutrition that separates great athletes from today and those from the past.

I'd like to see today's entitled athletes riding on trains for 162 games

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Wins are just another tool to evaluate pitchers.   I don't think anyone is saying they're the be all to end all.   But a guy with a lot of wins is, in all likelihood, pretty good.   Eric Gagne had a losing record and won a Cy.   Go figure.   Oh, that's right, he was a RP.

No one is arguing against those points (well, I insist that wins are pointless but anyway). Tec is saying that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina because Glavine has more 20 win seasons, which is ridiculous.

20 win seasons have always been a standard of accomplishment in MLB.  17 win seasons have not.

Also, you've not addressed the six top-3 finishes for Glavine in CYA voting, and only one top-3 finish for Mussina.  As I stated earlier, this is a meaningful difference.  Mussina was only once recognized as one of the three best pitchers in the AL over an 18 year career.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/12/2014 8:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Wins are just another tool to evaluate pitchers.   I don't think anyone is saying they're the be all to end all.   But a guy with a lot of wins is, in all likelihood, pretty good.   Eric Gagne had a losing record and won a Cy.   Go figure.   Oh, that's right, he was a RP.

No one is arguing against those points (well, I insist that wins are pointless but anyway). Tec is saying that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina because Glavine has more 20 win seasons, which is ridiculous.

20 win seasons have always been a standard of accomplishment in MLB.  17 win seasons have not.

Also, you've not addressed the six top-3 finishes for Glavine in CYA voting, and only one top-3 finish for Mussina.  As I stated earlier, this is a meaningful difference.  Mussina was only once recognized as one of the three best pitchers in the AL over an 18 year career.

I did, however, offer explanation of why that is, that you are choosing to ignore. Cy Young voters, until recently, and unless they were recognizing a closer, favor wins. Mussina didn't have as many opportunities to win games (better opposing pitchers going against him than against glavine, worse offenses in Baltimore giving him lower run support etc), and thus didn't register on the Cy Young voters minds as much. That being said, he was in the top 6 nine times, vs Glavine's six times. So while Glavine got a lot of love in his 20 win seasons, he didn't get much in any other year. Moose got some love in half of his seasons, so clearly he was doing something right.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/12/2014 8:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Wins are just another tool to evaluate pitchers.   I don't think anyone is saying they're the be all to end all.   But a guy with a lot of wins is, in all likelihood, pretty good.   Eric Gagne had a losing record and won a Cy.   Go figure.   Oh, that's right, he was a RP.

No one is arguing against those points (well, I insist that wins are pointless but anyway). Tec is saying that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina because Glavine has more 20 win seasons, which is ridiculous.

20 win seasons have always been a standard of accomplishment in MLB.  17 win seasons have not.

Also, you've not addressed the six top-3 finishes for Glavine in CYA voting, and only one top-3 finish for Mussina.  As I stated earlier, this is a meaningful difference.  Mussina was only once recognized as one of the three best pitchers in the AL over an 18 year career.

That's basically just the win argument all over again, right? Because up until just the last few years, cy young votes correlated pretty strongly to W/L record.

And, what has already been pointed out, move the top x number to 6 and Mussina has the advantage.

The reality is that we don't need to rely on wins or cy young votes. We know what both of these guys did. Mussina was more effective at preventing base runners and also runs when you control for league. But Glavine was able to throw 800+ more innings. They were very close. I'd probably take Mussina but I could see someone going with Glavine. What I don't see is the argument that Glavine belongs in the Hall and Mussina doesn't.

Anyone who wants to make that argument needs to have something better than DURRRRR WINS.

hey here's a thought...why don't you each draft identical teams, except one with Glavine and one with Mussina. Put them in the same parks and play 100 head to head games and see who wins the most of them....I wonder if there is a site where you could do that?